JAN MUHAMMAD and 8 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by nine applicants detained in connection with a criminal case involving cross-firing between two tribes, resulting in two deaths. The applicants were charged under sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given that a co-accused in identical circumstances had already been granted bail and the complainant had turned hostile during the trial. The High Court observed that the complainant and other witnesses had failed to implicate the applicants, and the matter appeared to have been compromised between the parties. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court held that since a co-accused similarly situated had been granted bail and no specific incriminating role was attributed to the applicants, they were entitled to the same relief. The Court concluded that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the applicants were guilty of the scheduled offence and consequently admitted them to bail, subject to the furnishing of surety bonds.
- Does the rule of consistency require the grant of bail to co-accused persons when another co-accused in identical circumstances has already been released?
- Is a bail application maintainable when the complainant and prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and failed to implicate the accused?
- Can bail be granted when there is evidence of a compromise between the parties in a criminal case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
FAZAL-UR-REHMAN, J.--- This is an application moved on behalf of above named applicants who are detained in Crime No,8 of 1999 Levies Thana Sub-Tehsil, Dera Murad Jamali, Offences under sections 302, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C.
2. The occurrence is stated to have taken place on 31-11-1999 at about 8-30 a.m. In Kuba Sher Khan.
Two persons were killed on account of cross-firing between the two tribes. Deceased Muhammad Arif Katore was belonging to complainant party while deceased Muhammad Hassan belonging to the opposite party. Two F.I.Rs, i,e, Nos.7 of 1999 and 8 of 1999 which are arising out of one and the same occurrence were lodged by Jan Muhammad son of Muhammad Hassan and Faiz Muhammad son of Haji Mureed. Co-accused Kheyali son of Sanawal Khan has already been released on bail by this Court as on 13-5-1999 in Criminal Bail Application No,187 of 1999. An application for grant of bail was earlier moved on behalf of abovenamed applicants but the same was not pressed and accordingly it was dismissed on 5-5-1999 with the following observations:-- "Needless to observe that after recording some evidence and submission of challan, if such application is filed by applicant before the trial Court, the trial Court shall dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law without having been influenced in any manner from earlier order."
On 10-6-1999 charge under the aforementioned sections was framed against the above named applicant and co-accused Kheyali son of Sanawal Khan by the trial Court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On the same date complainant Faiz Muhammad son of Haji Mureed did appear before the learned trial Court and examined who has not supported the prosecution case, and this witness was declared hostiled and the learned prosecutor was permitted for a coss- examination but nothing has been brought in cross-examination as to implicate the applicants with the commission of alleged offence. Thereafter, an application for grant of bail was moved in respect of applicants but the same was refused by the learned Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Nasirabad at Dera Murad Jamali vide order dated 30-6-1999 in Criminal Bail Application No,78 of 1999. Hence this application.
3. I have heard Mr. Ghulam Ali J. Rind, Advocate learned counsel for applicant while Mr. Shakil Ahmed Mirza for State.
4. Time and again our Honourble High Court has held that where one accused is granted bail and other co-accused who has also placed in similar and identical circumstances, then the rule of consistency requires that such co-accused be also released on bail. In the case in hand no specific role has been assigned to the present applicants. If any role is assigned in the F.I.R. It is against the co-accused Kheyail son of Sanawal Khan who was granted bail by this Court. Complainant Faiz Muhammad son of Haji Mureed who has been examined by the trial Court as P.W.1 has neither implicated the applicants with the commission of alleged offence nor supported the prosecution version. Similarly, Jan Muhammad son of Muhammad, Hassan has also not supported the prosecution version. It appears that the matter has been compromised between the parties. In the circumstances there appear no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants have been guilty of a scheduled offence. Even in the challan there is mentioned the name of Lashkar Khan son of Nawab who is absconding.
5. Having regard to the abovementioned factors and rule of consistency the present applicants are entitled for bail. Accordingly bail is granted to the above named applicants provided they furnish surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each and P.R. Of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Nasirabad at Dera Murad Jamali.
Cited by 2 cases
- HASSAN JAMEEL ANSARI and anothers vs NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY 2012 YLR 2809
- ALI BAAD KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE 2006 YLR 256